Suzanne Farrell

[Ari]

BW, I don't think anyone except the principals really knows why Farrell and Martins fell out, but I do remember reading an interview with Farrell around the time she retired in 1989. She was asked if she wanted to run NYCB, and she replied that she didn't think that women should run ballet companies--at least, she said, she as a dancer could not dedicate herself to working for a woman in the same way that she could work for a man--but that it was good to have a man running a company "with an impossible woman behind him." Perhaps Martins really did find her impossible.

[BW]

I think I prefer the couch ending better!! Oops, I mean "sofa"!

[ March 21, 2002, 02:05 PM: Message edited by: BW ]

[Farrell Fan]

Suzanne was fired from NYCB at the direction of Peter Martins at the end of July, 1993. There had been an article in the New Yorker by David Daniel in May which made clear her frustrations with her role at NYCB where she was ostensibly a coach. Like most dancers who'd been close to Mr. B, she'd had very little to do in the 8-week NYCB Balanchine Celebration that Spring. Although she did not directly criticize Martins, the New Yorker piece must have annoyed the Ballet Master in Chief.

In the story of her dismissal, the New York Times quoted her: "I was surprised and deeply hurt to receive a telephone call from the company manager informing me that I had been fired from New York City Ballet, although she didn't use the word 'fired.' She said it was because the company was currently operating with a deficit and I was doing little or no work for them. This is true, and it has been a source of unspeakable grief to me for the past three years that I have not been allowed to serve ballet, which is my love, in the company that has been my home for nearly 25 years. I never dreamed I would live to see the day when I didn't work for New York City Ballet."

Sort of deja vu all over again. At any rate, in April, 1996, the New York Times Magazine ran an article about Peter Martins' stewardship of NYCB in which he was quoted as saying that Farrell had asked to be his associate artistic director and he told her something to the effect that one cannot be an "associate" artistic director. In response, I wrote this letter to the Times magazine, which they published:

"As a fan of New York City Ballet for 35 years, I think that Peter Martins has done a good job leading the company in the post-Balanchine era. I am distressed, though, that he failed to appreciate Suzanne Farrell. According to your article, he spurned her reported bid to become 'associate artistic director' apparently for semantic reasons. Never mind that for eight years, the City Ballet was led by a grammatical impossibility: co-ballet masters in chief.

"Farrell's artistic raison d'etre is to keep alive the choreographic legacy of the genius for whom she served as inspiration and sublime interpreter. I went to four performances of 'Suzanne Farrell Stages Balanchine,' at the Kennedy Center in Washington last October and was thrilled by what I saw. It is sad that New York is deprived of her unique abilities."

I wrote the letter under my name, Lou D'Angelo, but it apparently established my identity as Farrell Fan. The next year the producers of Suzanne Farrell, Elusive Muse, invited me to an advance screening.

[ March 21, 2002, 05:26 PM: Message edited by: Farrell Fan ]

[Alexandra]

Thanks for that, FF a/k/a Lou I hope this will encourage other people to write beautiful, passionate letters to magazines when they're concerned -- pleased, outraged, hurt -- about something in dance.

[Hal]

I loved Farrell. She is my absolute favorite dancer ever. I am still waiting to see someone come even close to her sassiness in Union Jack, maybe Kowroski will come close... Same with Slaughter and ... well just about any ballet she ever did.

I recall when the 4 Seasons was first performed we were at opening night on a Thursday where McBride and Barrish did the fall section. It appeared as if the ballet was clearly choreographed for the male role with poor Patty only getting a secondary part in the shadow of Barishnikov. The following Tuesday it was danced by Farrell and Martins. It was clearly choreographed for the Ballerina with only a secondary role for the male. That was the impact those two dancers had. I have not seen any ballerina that was as exciting to watch as she was. Same goes for Barish.

There are very few dancers that have generated so much excitement when I have seen the perform. Farrell. Barish. Neureyev. Thats my list. Everyone else is at best in second place. Of course I was fortunate enough to see Farrell very many times. "Holding on to Air" is exactly what she did.

[Paul Parish]

About Farrell's smile --

Farrell has a great grin, but it is not a beautiful smile. Her face without a smile is a very beautiful face. Her face was in hte 60's also very similar to the face of a great British model, Jean Shrimpton, who was really the iconic face of the mid-60's/Vietnam-war era -- unlike Vanessa Redgrave, who had a lantern-jawed pre-Raphaelite face that Lady Bracknell might have approved, Shrimpton and Farrell shared a vulnerable sad-eyed hexagonal face with a slightly pouting overbite, not a noble face -- in fact, rather a "weak" profile -- but a face that might look back at you from a child begging in the street that you'd started to say "No" to.... or the child in the foreground of a painting by Rubens who looks out at us and whose eyes ask, "WHy don't you do something? HOw can you let this happen?" -- the ancestress of the OXFAM face.

A lot that Barthes said about the mask of Garbo -- the "snowy solitary face" -- applies to Farrell. I don't mean to push this too far... Farrell could be queenly in the second half of Chaconne, and in Diamonds; but the way she looked made Dulcinea (early) and Mozartiana (late) come to life before she ever started to move.... the amazing thing was that once she started to dance, the illusion became even more compelling rather than less.

Farrell never had to USE her face to do this -- she did have to control her smile and open her eyes and look into a better world, if that was appropriate, and let her face be subordinate to the work the rest of her body and soul were doing when she danced.

I't's an accident of fate -- Margot Fonteyn's face also resembled a very famous face, that of hte young Queen elizabeth II, and that suited her place and time and repertory...

In each ballerina's case, she doesn't have to fake it... it IS her face, it just happens to be the face of her times....

[Dale]

Ari, I beleive the article you mentioned came out a year after Balanchine died in Ballet News. Farrell was still dancing. That would put a little different perspective on her comments.

[casloan]

For both my husband and me, there has never been another dancer like Suzanne Farrell. We were fortunate (not being New Yorkers and never knowing in advance, of course, who might be dancing) to see her in many of her great Balanchine roles (which others have already mentioned).

Once, we even saw her Sugar Plum Fairy with Peter Martins as her cavalier. We were lucky enough to see them dance together on several other occasions. They were, indeed, the perfect partnership -- onstage. We're just so sorry about the way she was treated later -- offstage.

Because her husband Paul Mejia was with Chicago Ballet, we also were privileged to see her dance his "Cinderella" here several times. The ballet itself was not wonderful, but she was.

Anyone who partnered her had his hands full because of her spontaneity and unpredictability. We attended a memorable dress rehearsal of "Cinderella" in which a hapless local dancer had to substitute as the prince for the ailing or injured Adam Luders. It was not smooth sailing, to put it mildly.

I also had the good fortune to see her in Bejart's "Rite of Spring." I've never been a particular fan of this ballet, no matter who the choreographer might be (although I love the music), but Farrell was electrifying as the sacrificial victim in Bejart's rendition.

[casloan]

A minor correction to my previous post -- Mejia was with Tallchief's Chicago CITY Ballet (we've had so many variations on such names through the years that it's hard to keep them all straight).

[Farrell Fan]

Thanks for the recollections, Casloan. I regret never having seen Suzanne's Rite of Spring or Cinderella. We did see Cinderella at City Center one year with the Fort Worth Ballet, where Paul Mejia had gone on to become artistic director. Suzanne was in the audience and told us it was a very difficult role.

[Doris R]

My daughter has been fortunate enough to work with Miss Farrell on several occasions. I don't think there is anyone she admires more.

[blizzardqueen]

Wow! Whe I first wrote that Suzanne Farrell was my favorite dancer, I never expected such a HUGE response! I have read her book at least 5 times, seen her video three times(Elusive Muse) and read anything I could about her...Her dancing on the video was absolutly woderful, and I really wish that I could have seen her dance. When she did the Suzanne Farrell Stages the Masters of Twentieth Century Ballet, I went to see it, and I loved it! I am so excited to be able to study with and live with her this summer... It's really a dream come true, and I think it'll be wonderful to learn so much from her.

[casloan]

Dear blizzardqueen,

Those (many) of us who love Suzanne Farrell as a dancer (and as a teacher and guardian of the Balanchine legacy) envy you for your opportunity to study with her and wish you -- and her -- the best.

Please tell us all about your experience!

Claudia

[blizzardqueen]

I just wanted to say thank you to everyone discussing Suzanne Farrell's Cedar Island program, because this is where my mom heard about it, and if she hadn't heard about it on here, I wouldn't be going. So, thanks everybody!

[ballet_shalom_forever]

I LOVE Suzzane Farrell.

She has a veruy delicate look about her. Just love her.

[Farrell Fan]

In Mary Cargill's review of the NYCB winter season in the Spring 2003 Dance View, she refers to Farrell as being "illusive yet profound" in her original role in Robert Schumann's Davidsbundlertanze." That has a certain resonance because the documentary film about her is titled Suzanne Farrell: Elusive Muse. The question is, was Suzanne elusive (avoiding one's grasp) or illusive (having the quality of an illusion)? Probably both. As a matter of fact, it would take a latter-day Roget to differentiate among all the qualities she brought to every performance.

[dirac]

Judging from the video, I'd say both, too. I wonder how many total miles d'Amboise put in over the years, chasing the elusive Miss F. around the stage.

[blizzardqueen]

I was online the other day (yes, I was typing in "Suzanne Farrell" and reading anything that would come up:D ) and I saw the forward to the new edition of her book, Holding onto the Air. Anyways, at the very end, she hints at possibly writing another book! About her students! Does anyone know ANYTHING at all about this??

I'm fortunate to once again be spending the summer with her on Cedar Islands, and once again extend my thanks to all on the site who were discussing the program, leading to me finding out about this wonderful program, and auditioning, then going Thanks:)

[Farrell Fan]

Congratulations on the wonderful opportunity of spending another summer on Cedar Islands, blizzardqueen! And thanks again for having initiated this thread way back when.

I don't know if Suzanne will write another book, but I too was excited by the prospect she seems to hold out at the end of the foreword to the new edition. The foreword is also notable because she minces no words about being fired by Peter Martins in July, 1993, "through the company manager. who called me and said that Peter questioned my ability to teach and therefore could not justify my salary." Her ability to teach has been proved many times over since that shameful day, and I'm glad you're among the beneficiaries.

All the best.

[balletbooster]

My daughter will be attending Cedar Island, along with BlizzardQueen, this summer. When talking about Ms. Farrell's abilities as a teacher, I think it is important to note that both of her summer programs, at Cedar Island and Kennedy Center, are small and intimate programs. Her lucky students get a very rare opportunity to work one-on-one with a ballet legend.

I do not know of any other dancer, of this stature in the US, that has been willing to give this much of their time and of themselves in order to train the next generation. I know of many ballet luminaries that guest teach at summer programs, several of which my daughter has been fortunate enough to take classes from. But, in none of those cases, was the teacher willing to get to know each student, spend time with them after classes were over and in the evenings, etc. In none of those settings were the classes small enough where the guest teacher really even had much of an opportunity to get to know the specific needs of the dancers nor did teachers of this stature work with the same students on a daily basis. It is far more common for teachers of this stature to come in and teach for a week or perhaps one class a week, but certainly not every ballet class for the duration of the program!

By conducting all of her own auditions across the country, she makes at least one class with her available to anyone who is interested. I often hear that her audition class for her summer programs is the favorite audition that many dancers attend during the audition season. Again, I know of no other ballet luminary that offers such an opportunity.

Ms. Farrell could certainly have a multitude of guest teaching opportunities. I daresay that they would likely offer her greater financial gain than her two programs do. They would certainly require less of her time in preparing, planning, and carrying out the programs! I think this says much about Ms. Farrell and her desire to pass on her knowledge and experience to others.

I am very grateful to her for taking the initiative and for her willingness to give of her time to create these unique training programs. It is just one more aspect of her personality that makes her so fascinating to those of us who admire her work. My daughter can hardly stand the excitement she feels when she thinks about her upcoming summer with Ms. Farrell!

[Farrell Fan]

I loved reading this, balletbooster -- thanks!

[gatto97]

Being relatively new to ballet, my first initiation into "good" dancing was through PBS airing Suzanne Farrell Ellusive Muse back in 1997. After that I immersed myself in all things Balanchine and Farrell. In some ways I loved the 60's Farrell I've seen via tape...that baby faced chubbiness - very much the face of a cherub, but with moves so bewitching. She embodies the young girl who doesn't realize the enormous sexual and sensual power she posesses. By the time of her return in the mid 70's, her face shows her experience - and though still beautiful, she is clearly a woman who owns and controls her power. Perhaps thats the difference between the two Farrell's...in the 60's she was abandonment for abandonments sake...experimentation for its own sake...a period of trial and error. And though Farrell continued to challange herself throughout her career, she definately had her bag of tricks by the mid 70's.

And for those who don't believe film can capture the power of visual performance...I say it depends on the performer. As a classically trained clarinetist, most audio recordings lack excitement to my ear...but a few musical geniuses ala Harold Wright or Doriot Dwyer, capture on tape the thrill and unexpected eliment of a live performance. I have a recording of BSO Daphnis & Chloe from the 1950's that would make you pee in your pants - its so exciting! I believe the same is true for ballet...and probably more so for the dancers out there - once in a great while you can capture magic on tape. This tangent does have a point...sorry guys.

Getting back to Farrell, one of the most exciting excerpts of her dancing that I've seen is from Dancing for Mr. B. A tape I had purchased a few years back when I first became obsessed, I was more floored by Tallchief's firebird in practice cloths (though those 20 seconds are still gorgeous - her bouree's float) than anything else. Recently I rewatched the tape and there was Suzanne. The way she turns, leans on her left leg and raises - higher and higher...her right leg in developpe and then I saw her genius...when her leg couldn't get any higher her right arm is still extending - opening itself...the movement doesn't stop - steping over PM into that Pirouette, then Arabesque penchee...all so smooth. And that upside down lift, where she is facing the ceiling in a split...nothing but her arm is still completing the movement. Having seen a couple other (inadequet) performances of Terpsichore, and being able to compare one of them from a tape (Balanchine Celebration)...no other dancer could connect movement like Suzanne could.

My overall point is - I cherish the few tapes of Ms. Farrells dancing that are available to me and in many ways I find them more fulfilling than most live performances I see today. Actually, I watch other dancers perform her roles (Meditation, Chaccone) and I imagine her movements in my minds eye...seeing what she would have done in what others don't do.

[Farrell Fan]

Interesting comparison of the 60s Farrell to the post-Bejart Farrell, Gatto. I pretty much agree with it, and once heard the latter-day Farrell herself refer to her "bag of tricks." I also agree about "Dancing for Mr. B." The six Balanchine ballerinas in that film were Tallchief, Moylan, Hayden, Kent, Ashley, and Kistler, but the Apollo excerpt with Farrell was one of the highlights. Not only that -- Farrell's unseen presence seemed to dominate some of the remarks by the others. That film was by the late Anne Belle, who later made "Elusive Muse." Incidentally, I hope you've seen "Muse" subsequent to its original 1997 PBS showings, which were cut by fifteen minutes. PBS has lately been showing it in full. It's commercially available. As for the whole subject of Farrell on film, having been lucky (and old) enough to have seen Suzanne in live performance throughout her career, I really think nothing on tape or DVD captures her essence completely. Mostly that's because she never gave the same performance twice.

[gatto97]

Hi Farrell Fan,

Glad to know I am on the right track with my assesment of Ms. Farrell's dancing. I envy you were able to follow her career as it happened. Being 26, I feel I have missed out on the great renaissance which occured between the 50's and 70's...extending from dance to the concert hall.

Interesting you should mention the cut footage from Ellusive Muse. As stated previously, I had first viewed the film on PBS in 1997 - even recording it, though I lost the tape during one of my many moves. Not having seen the film in over 3 years, I purchased the DVD this past spring and was confused by some footage I didn't recall. Most notably when Suzanne talks about the night of the Don Q premiere...when she and Balanchine went to DnD's for coffee and doughnuts. Also, some footage at the beginning of the film ... mostly dancing from Meditation, appeared to have been cut in 1997. What was PBS thinking - they give Bluegrass at the POPs a full 2 hours!

I don't know about anyone else, but I was extremely disappointed with the lack of extra's on the DVD. I personally would have loved to see full performances of all her featured dancing...especially Meditation and Apollo. I hope more footage of her dancing will be released commercially during the centennial.

Edited September 19, 2003 by gatto97

[Farrell Fan]

There was at least one other Ballet Alert poster who expressed disappointment that the DVD contained no additional material. The fact is that the original film was longer than the 105 minutes that comprised the ultimate release, so they could have added stuff. Before the film came to the Walter Reade Theater, I saw an approximately two-hour version at a screening and reception for Suzanne at the NYPL. To this day, I don't know who was responsible for my invitation, but it was one of the great events of my life.